Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Koen Kooi]

Hi,

Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:

koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf

koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ !find
find . -name "atom-pc.conf"
koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ 

So let's drop down a level and try other layers:

koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ cd ..
koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources$ ls -1 | grep meta
meta-angstrom/
meta-efikamx/
meta-intel/
meta-nslu2/
meta-openembedded/
meta-openpandora/
meta-shr/
meta-smartphone/
meta-texasinstruments/
meta-xilinx/
koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources$ find . -name "atom-pc.conf"
koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources$ 

Still nothing. So where is it hiding?

regards,

Koen

[1] The bugs:

20:22 <khem> MACHINE=4 bitbake console-image
20:22 <khem> try any nonexisting machine
20:22 <khem> no error nothing

and:

20:23 <khem> so any x86 arch in angstrom is not parsable 
20:23 <khem> and it seems to be culminating from various factors
20:24 <khem> if I remove inheriting rm_work it starts to work
20:24 <khem> if I remove BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH = "all" from allarch.bbclass it starts to work

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Saul Wold]

On 06/13/2011 11:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
>
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
>
meta-yocto seems to be the place you need to look!

I hope that the layering tools can help to detect and inform folks of 
this like of dependency.

Sau!
(yes another tentacle to keep track of!)


> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ !find
> find . -name "atom-pc.conf"
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$
>
> So let's drop down a level and try other layers:
>
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ cd ..
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources$ ls -1 | grep meta
> meta-angstrom/
> meta-efikamx/
> meta-intel/
> meta-nslu2/
> meta-openembedded/
> meta-openpandora/
> meta-shr/
> meta-smartphone/
> meta-texasinstruments/
> meta-xilinx/
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources$ find . -name "atom-pc.conf"
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources$
>
> Still nothing. So where is it hiding?
>
> regards,
>
> Koen
>
> [1] The bugs:
>
> 20:22<khem>  MACHINE=4 bitbake console-image
> 20:22<khem>  try any nonexisting machine
> 20:22<khem>  no error nothing
>
> and:
>
> 20:23<khem>  so any x86 arch in angstrom is not parsable
> 20:23<khem>  and it seems to be culminating from various factors
> 20:24<khem>  if I remove inheriting rm_work it starts to work
> 20:24<khem>  if I remove BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH = "all" from allarch.bbclass it starts to work
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Joshua Lock]

On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 20:31 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
> 
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
> 
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ !find
> find . -name "atom-pc.conf"
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ 
> 
> So let's drop down a level and try other layers:
> 
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ cd ..
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources$ ls -1 | grep meta
> meta-angstrom/
> meta-efikamx/
> meta-intel/
> meta-nslu2/
> meta-openembedded/
> meta-openpandora/
> meta-shr/
> meta-smartphone/
> meta-texasinstruments/
> meta-xilinx/
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources$ find . -name "atom-pc.conf"
> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources$ 
> 
> Still nothing. So where is it hiding?

meta-yocto:
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta-yocto/conf/machine/atom-pc.conf

Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
        Yocto Project Build Monkey
        Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Koen Kooi]

Op 13 jun 2011, om 22:28 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:

> On 06/13/2011 11:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
>> 
>> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
>> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
>> 
> meta-yocto seems to be the place you need to look!
> 
> I hope that the layering tools can help to detect and inform folks of this like of dependency.

Isn't meta-yocto supposed to a the integration layer with no new parts? I can't use meta-yocto since it has conflicting beagleboard stuff in it, which means that meta-intel is now broken for me as well. That surely isn't the intended plan?!?!

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:36 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 13 jun 2011, om 22:28 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On 06/13/2011 11:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
> >> 
> >> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
> >> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
> >> 
> > meta-yocto seems to be the place you need to look!
> > 
> > I hope that the layering tools can help to detect and inform folks of this like of dependency.
> 
> Isn't meta-yocto supposed to a the integration layer with no new
> parts? I can't use meta-yocto since it has conflicting beagleboard
> stuff in it, which means that meta-intel is now broken for me as well.
> That surely isn't the intended plan?!?!

The plan on public record is that atom-pc moves to meta-intel as soon as
the layer tooling comes online and meta-yocto becomes its own repo
(which at present its not but its certainly the intent).

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Tom Rini]

On 06/13/2011 02:30 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:36 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 13 jun 2011, om 22:28 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> On 06/13/2011 11:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
>>>>
>>>> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
>>>> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
>>>>
>>> meta-yocto seems to be the place you need to look!
>>>
>>> I hope that the layering tools can help to detect and inform folks of this like of dependency.
>>
>> Isn't meta-yocto supposed to a the integration layer with no new
>> parts? I can't use meta-yocto since it has conflicting beagleboard
>> stuff in it, which means that meta-intel is now broken for me as well.
>> That surely isn't the intended plan?!?!
> 
> The plan on public record is that atom-pc moves to meta-intel as soon as
> the layer tooling comes online and meta-yocto becomes its own repo
> (which at present its not but its certainly the intent).

Until then, and even afterwards can we please get some testing of
non-poky builds done?  I know the autobuilder is full but can't we toss
a few things onto a personal box and try that a few times a week?

-- 
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 22:10, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> Until then, and even afterwards can we please get some testing of
> non-poky builds done?  I know the autobuilder is full but can't we toss
> a few things onto a personal box and try that a few times a week?

I think this ought to be the inverse. Poky ought to be less built
since it depends (or will depends) on oe-core so this needs to be
fully tested. After this passes then Poky and Yocto ought to be tested
since the base has been proved stable and like.

My 2c.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 15:10 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 02:30 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:36 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 13 jun 2011, om 22:28 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
> >>
> >>> On 06/13/2011 11:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
> >>>>
> >>>> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
> >>>> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
> >>>>
> >>> meta-yocto seems to be the place you need to look!
> >>>
> >>> I hope that the layering tools can help to detect and inform folks of this like of dependency.
> >>
> >> Isn't meta-yocto supposed to a the integration layer with no new
> >> parts? I can't use meta-yocto since it has conflicting beagleboard
> >> stuff in it, which means that meta-intel is now broken for me as well.
> >> That surely isn't the intended plan?!?!
> > 
> > The plan on public record is that atom-pc moves to meta-intel as soon as
> > the layer tooling comes online and meta-yocto becomes its own repo
> > (which at present its not but its certainly the intent).
> 
> Until then, and even afterwards can we please get some testing of
> non-poky builds done?  I know the autobuilder is full but can't we toss
> a few things onto a personal box and try that a few times a week?

Sure, the more people testing the various combinations the better!

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Tom Rini]

On 06/13/2011 03:35 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 15:10 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 06/13/2011 02:30 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:36 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Op 13 jun 2011, om 22:28 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/13/2011 11:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
>>>>>> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
>>>>>>
>>>>> meta-yocto seems to be the place you need to look!
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that the layering tools can help to detect and inform folks of this like of dependency.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't meta-yocto supposed to a the integration layer with no new
>>>> parts? I can't use meta-yocto since it has conflicting beagleboard
>>>> stuff in it, which means that meta-intel is now broken for me as well.
>>>> That surely isn't the intended plan?!?!
>>>
>>> The plan on public record is that atom-pc moves to meta-intel as soon as
>>> the layer tooling comes online and meta-yocto becomes its own repo
>>> (which at present its not but its certainly the intent).
>>
>> Until then, and even afterwards can we please get some testing of
>> non-poky builds done?  I know the autobuilder is full but can't we toss
>> a few things onto a personal box and try that a few times a week?
> 
> Sure, the more people testing the various combinations the better!

I fear I'm not being clear.  Can You, Saul and maybe other folks making
frequent submissions and are at times more poky-oriented than not, do
this as well?  While I'd love the world I'd settle for a bunch of -g's
to catch obvious problems and a console-image or something..

-- 
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 15:44 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 03:35 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 15:10 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> On 06/13/2011 02:30 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:36 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>> Op 13 jun 2011, om 22:28 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 06/13/2011 11:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
> >>>>>> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> meta-yocto seems to be the place you need to look!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I hope that the layering tools can help to detect and inform folks of this like of dependency.
> >>>>
> >>>> Isn't meta-yocto supposed to a the integration layer with no new
> >>>> parts? I can't use meta-yocto since it has conflicting beagleboard
> >>>> stuff in it, which means that meta-intel is now broken for me as well.
> >>>> That surely isn't the intended plan?!?!
> >>>
> >>> The plan on public record is that atom-pc moves to meta-intel as soon as
> >>> the layer tooling comes online and meta-yocto becomes its own repo
> >>> (which at present its not but its certainly the intent).
> >>
> >> Until then, and even afterwards can we please get some testing of
> >> non-poky builds done?  I know the autobuilder is full but can't we toss
> >> a few things onto a personal box and try that a few times a week?
> > 
> > Sure, the more people testing the various combinations the better!
> 
> I fear I'm not being clear.  Can You, Saul and maybe other folks making
> frequent submissions and are at times more poky-oriented than not, do
> this as well?  While I'd love the world I'd settle for a bunch of -g's
> to catch obvious problems and a console-image or something..

Since you're highlighting me personally here, I do test a variety of
things periodically. I only have access to one desktop machine and one
Linux laptop so just like everyone else the testing I can physically do
is limited.

I also merge a ton of changes from various people and rely at some level
on trust of those people to have tested changes. I know Saul also does a
lot of testing of various combinations. It might not always be the
combination you personally want but its certainly better than no testing
at all.

OE is getting a number of new computer resources soon thanks to the
Linux Foundation and testing OE-Core is on Tom King's todo list. Yocto
is also stepping up and doing a lot of testing. It is hardware limited
and also looking to increase its resources which is planned and
happening, albeit slower than we'd like in an ideal world.

So on the one hand I do understand your concern. I'm personally and
Yocto are doing the best we can. On the other I'd suggest if testing
certain combinations is this important to you (or Mentor?), stepping up
and helping with the testing would be *much* appreciated and it isn't
the sole responsibility of myself or Saul.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 23:04, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
...
> So on the one hand I do understand your concern. I'm personally and
> Yocto are doing the best we can. On the other I'd suggest if testing
> certain combinations is this important to you (or Mentor?), stepping up
> and helping with the testing would be *much* appreciated and it isn't
> the sole responsibility of myself or Saul.
...

It would be easier and better if people at Yocto could start basing
their work on oe-core so stuff get tested there instead of Poky. Poky
would then be an integration point not a base.

More then once I got broken trees for stuff that were pushed to
oe-core and were not working due missing fixes or features that were
pushed to Poky's bitbake but not to the upstream one.

Doing this would help to improve it a lot. For example meta-intel
would be already fixed since people would be using it against oe-core
and would have already noticed the missing machine  definition and
like.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 23:17 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 23:04, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> ...
> > So on the one hand I do understand your concern. I'm personally and
> > Yocto are doing the best we can. On the other I'd suggest if testing
> > certain combinations is this important to you (or Mentor?), stepping up
> > and helping with the testing would be *much* appreciated and it isn't
> > the sole responsibility of myself or Saul.
> ...
> 
> It would be easier and better if people at Yocto could start basing
> their work on oe-core so stuff get tested there instead of Poky. Poky
> would then be an integration point not a base.

Have you looked at the delta recently? Yocto uses OE-Core with the
single addition of the meta-yocto layer which is tiny. Just like
angstrom use the meta-angstrom layer and the meta-oe layer. 

> More then once I got broken trees for stuff that were pushed to
> oe-core and were not working due missing fixes or features that were
> pushed to Poky's bitbake but not to the upstream one.

Again, please look at the delta between upstream bitbake and the one in
poky. All bitbake patches are now landing upstream first. There were
issues, we came up with a plan to address them and we're doing what we
said we would do...

> Doing this would help to improve it a lot. For example meta-intel
> would be already fixed since people would be using it against oe-core
> and would have already noticed the missing machine  definition and
> like.

We *know* the machine definition isn't there, its deliberate. We came up
with a plan to create OE-Core and to get Poky and OE both migrated to
using it. This process is not 100% complete yet although it gets closer
every day.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 00:02, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
...
> We *know* the machine definition isn't there, its deliberate. We came up
> with a plan to create OE-Core and to get Poky and OE both migrated to
> using it. This process is not 100% complete yet although it gets closer
> every day.

I know the delta is getting smaller and smaller. This is good. A good
way to make it move faster is using OE-Core as basis. This will
"force" the backporting of missing Poky's change to OE-Core to happen
faster.

Currently there're many people that base the stuff (that is target to
OE-Core) on Poky and sometimes it cases issues (as the bitbake ones I
used as example).

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Tuesday 14 June 2011 01:09:27 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> I know the delta is getting smaller and smaller. This is good. A good
> way to make it move faster is using OE-Core as basis. This will
> "force" the backporting of missing Poky's change to OE-Core to happen
> faster.

We *are* using oe-core as a basis. The thing limiting us right now is the lack 
of appropriate layer tooling, something which is being worked on right now and 
should arrive very soon - in fact the combo layer tool you responded to 
earlier is the most important piece that we need to fix this integration issue.

> Currently there're many people that base the stuff (that is target to
> OE-Core) on Poky and sometimes it cases issues (as the bitbake ones I
> used as example).

Since bitbake upstream and the one in poky are now very close (differences 
almost negligible) and we now send all of our changes via upstream first, I 
would not expect any more bitbake divergence in future.

I'm not saying we can't do better or we shouldn't test with oe-core alone - we 
definitely should do the latter more often. I can only reiterate what Richard 
has said - bear with us, we're working on it :)

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Koen Kooi]

Op 13 jun 2011, om 23:30 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:36 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 13 jun 2011, om 22:28 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On 06/13/2011 11:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
>>>> 
>>>> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
>>>> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
>>>> 
>>> meta-yocto seems to be the place you need to look!
>>> 
>>> I hope that the layering tools can help to detect and inform folks of this like of dependency.
>> 
>> Isn't meta-yocto supposed to a the integration layer with no new
>> parts? I can't use meta-yocto since it has conflicting beagleboard
>> stuff in it, which means that meta-intel is now broken for me as well.
>> That surely isn't the intended plan?!?!
> 
> The plan on public record is that atom-pc moves to meta-intel as soon as
> the layer tooling comes online and meta-yocto becomes its own repo
> (which at present its not but its certainly the intent).

So can someone at least put that in the meta-intel or meta-n450 README? Most layers now have a README with the dependency info (e.g. http://git.shr-project.org/git/?p=meta-smartphone.git;a=blob;f=meta-palm/README;h=200a3c83ff11ad790fe4e03e93a26520ec0c6714;hb=HEAD ) It would be nice if the ones on yocto-project.org had somethign similar :)

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Phil Blundell]

On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 15:10 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> Until then, and even afterwards can we please get some testing of
> non-poky builds done?  I know the autobuilder is full but can't we toss
> a few things onto a personal box and try that a few times a week?

I can probably find some spare cpu cycles to do testing.  Is there an
existing autobuild/autotest infrastructure that we can conveniently use
to drive the tests and report the status?

p.

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:44 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 15:10 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > Until then, and even afterwards can we please get some testing of
> > non-poky builds done?  I know the autobuilder is full but can't we toss
> > a few things onto a personal box and try that a few times a week?
> 
> I can probably find some spare cpu cycles to do testing.  Is there an
> existing autobuild/autotest infrastructure that we can conveniently use
> to drive the tests and report the status?

Buildbot is what Yocto is using and the documentation/sample config for
what we do is available at:

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-autobuilder/

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Tom Zanussi]

On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 00:40 -0700, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 13 jun 2011, om 23:30 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:36 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 13 jun 2011, om 22:28 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
> >> 
> >>> On 06/13/2011 11:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
> >>>> 
> >>>> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
> >>>> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
> >>>> 
> >>> meta-yocto seems to be the place you need to look!
> >>> 
> >>> I hope that the layering tools can help to detect and inform folks of this like of dependency.
> >> 
> >> Isn't meta-yocto supposed to a the integration layer with no new
> >> parts? I can't use meta-yocto since it has conflicting beagleboard
> >> stuff in it, which means that meta-intel is now broken for me as well.
> >> That surely isn't the intended plan?!?!
> > 
> > The plan on public record is that atom-pc moves to meta-intel as soon as
> > the layer tooling comes online and meta-yocto becomes its own repo
> > (which at present its not but its certainly the intent).
> 
> So can someone at least put that in the meta-intel or meta-n450 README? Most layers now have a README with the dependency info (e.g. http://git.shr-project.org/git/?p=meta-smartphone.git;a=blob;f=meta-palm/README;h=200a3c83ff11ad790fe4e03e93a26520ec0c6714;hb=HEAD ) It would be nice if the ones on yocto-project.org had somethign similar :)
> _

Would something like this do the trick for now (if so, I can do similar
for the other meta-intel bsps)?

From ae612a895b320471f65e289328fd351d4094a7c2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id:
<ae612a895b320471f65e289328fd351d4094a7c2.1308077431.git.tom.zanussi@intel.com>
From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:49:24 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] meta-n450: add dependency info

Add information on the dependencies needed to use the meta-n450 layer.

Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
---
 meta-n450/ReleaseNotes |   30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta-n450/ReleaseNotes b/meta-n450/ReleaseNotes
index 23ac815..4257d94 100644
--- a/meta-n450/ReleaseNotes
+++ b/meta-n450/ReleaseNotes
@@ -1,8 +1,38 @@
 Poky Laverne Release 4.0
 
+- Dependencies
 - Features and Updates
 - Known Issues
 
+DEPENDENCIES
+============
+
+This layer depends on:
+
+  URI: git://git.openembedded.org/bitbake
+  branch: master
+
+  URI: git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core
+  layers: meta
+  branch: master
+
+  URI: git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky
+  layers: meta-yocto
+  branch: master
+
+NOTE: n450 currently depends on meta-yocto due to atom-pc
+dependencies.  The plan is to move atom-pc to meta-intel as soon as
+the layer tooling comes online and meta-yocto becomes its own repo.
+At that point, meta-yocto will no longer be required.
+
+Note also that the layering with respect to the poky repo is in
+transition; it currently contains both meta from openembedded-core and
+bitbake along with some other files and directories which will
+eventually be contained in standalone repos once the ongoing layering
+work has been completed.  As such, the master branch of the poky repo
+can at the present time be used to satisfy all meta-intel
+dependencies.
+
 
 FEATURES AND UPDATES
 ====================
-- 
1.7.0.4



> ______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Koen Kooi]

Op 14 jun 2011, om 22:20 heeft Tom Zanussi het volgende geschreven:

> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 00:40 -0700, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 13 jun 2011, om 23:30 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:36 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Op 13 jun 2011, om 22:28 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 06/13/2011 11:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
>>>>>> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
>>>>>> 
>>>>> meta-yocto seems to be the place you need to look!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I hope that the layering tools can help to detect and inform folks of this like of dependency.
>>>> 
>>>> Isn't meta-yocto supposed to a the integration layer with no new
>>>> parts? I can't use meta-yocto since it has conflicting beagleboard
>>>> stuff in it, which means that meta-intel is now broken for me as well.
>>>> That surely isn't the intended plan?!?!
>>> 
>>> The plan on public record is that atom-pc moves to meta-intel as soon as
>>> the layer tooling comes online and meta-yocto becomes its own repo
>>> (which at present its not but its certainly the intent).
>> 
>> So can someone at least put that in the meta-intel or meta-n450 README? Most layers now have a README with the dependency info (e.g. http://git.shr-project.org/git/?p=meta-smartphone.git;a=blob;f=meta-palm/README;h=200a3c83ff11ad790fe4e03e93a26520ec0c6714;hb=HEAD ) It would be nice if the ones on yocto-project.org had somethign similar :)
>> _
> 
> Would something like this do the trick for now (if so, I can do similar
> for the other meta-intel bsps)?

I'd put it in README, but yeah, it's an improvement.

Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Tom Zanussi]

On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 14:08 -0700, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 14 jun 2011, om 22:20 heeft Tom Zanussi het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 00:40 -0700, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 13 jun 2011, om 23:30 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> >> 
> >>> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:36 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>> Op 13 jun 2011, om 22:28 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On 06/13/2011 11:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
> >>>>>> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> meta-yocto seems to be the place you need to look!
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I hope that the layering tools can help to detect and inform folks of this like of dependency.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Isn't meta-yocto supposed to a the integration layer with no new
> >>>> parts? I can't use meta-yocto since it has conflicting beagleboard
> >>>> stuff in it, which means that meta-intel is now broken for me as well.
> >>>> That surely isn't the intended plan?!?!
> >>> 
> >>> The plan on public record is that atom-pc moves to meta-intel as soon as
> >>> the layer tooling comes online and meta-yocto becomes its own repo
> >>> (which at present its not but its certainly the intent).
> >> 
> >> So can someone at least put that in the meta-intel or meta-n450 README? Most layers now have a README with the dependency info (e.g. http://git.shr-project.org/git/?p=meta-smartphone.git;a=blob;f=meta-palm/README;h=200a3c83ff11ad790fe4e03e93a26520ec0c6714;hb=HEAD ) It would be nice if the ones on yocto-project.org had somethign similar :)
> >> _
> > 
> > Would something like this do the trick for now (if so, I can do similar
> > for the other meta-intel bsps)?
> 
> I'd put it in README, but yeah, it's an improvement.

OK, yeah, for some reason n450 decided to name its README
'ReleaseNotes'.  I'll find out if there was a reason for that and rename
it to README like the others if not...

Tom

> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core